Note: "permalinks" may not be as permanent as we would like,
direct links of old sources may well be a few messages off.
[root at ydog1 root]# cat /proc/meminfo MemTotal: 8066392 kB MemFree: 5140712 kB Buffers: 801440 kB Cached: 276156 kB SwapCached: 0 kB Active: 862852 kB Inactive: 227800 kB HighTotal: 0 kB HighFree: 0 kB LowTotal: 8066392 kB LowFree: 5140712 kB SwapTotal: 2040244 kB SwapFree: 2040244 kB Dirty: 12 kB Writeback: 0 kB Mapped: 23756 kB Slab: 1811864 kB CommitLimit: 6073440 kB Committed_AS: 24704 kB PageTables: 832 kB VmallocTotal: 2147483647 kB VmallocUsed: 2132 kB VmallocChunk: 2147481171 kB ----- Original Message ----- From: "Lars Ellenberg" <Lars.Ellenberg at linbit.com> To: <drbd-user at lists.linbit.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 10:31 AM Subject: Re: [DRBD-user] Resized the Raid.... >/ 2005-04-19 09:58:45 -0500 > \ David A. Smith: >> Reboot is definately not helping... AND to make matters more >> complicated - >> i got it backwards. We went from a 0.8 & a 1.0TB (1.8TB) drives Raided >> togther to 1.0 & 1.4TB (2.4TB) drives raided together - so we're actually >> going LARGER - not smaller. (still the same crash though). > > that makes more sense: > more storage, more bitmap memory, more likely to fail allocation. > > though I still see no reason why vmalloc on a 64bit arch should fail, if > you have enough physical memory. And, it is "only" 80MB, that should be > fine. > > what does your /proc/meminfo say? > > still, we need to fix drbd to not bug, but fail more gracefully. though > that won't help you for now, just leave you with an unusable device. > > you can try to reduce the device size to some "known working". > either by partitioning your raid, or by using lvm / dm on top of it. > > Lars > _______________________________________________ > drbd-user mailing list > drbd-user at lists.linbit.com > http://lists.linbit.com/mailman/listinfo/drbd-user >